<< A response of "a Type classification simply isn't possible and/or appropriate for that piece" should always be an acceptable response. It doesn't make what you have any more or less desirable than it would be without the Type classification, and in those cases, you simply have to use a few more words to describe what it is. >>
I agree with that. In cases the type system doesn't apply, or the photo doesn't fit (at least neatly) into the type system, or the type, while technically accurate, doesn't tell the whole story. In some cases a photo can straddle types or fit into multiple types (see composites). In cases you have to go beyond the type labels to explain what the photo really is. Sometimes the description of a novel photo's identity and nature can't fit on a physical label because it's 800 words long.
Question: "Is your composite photo for sale Type I or is it Type II?"
Answer: "The answer to what it is is more complicated that your question suggests. Let me explain how the different parts of the photo were made ..."
Last edited by drcy; 09-26-2014 at 01:34 AM.
|